BourgeoisieCommunismCommunist PartyWorking Class

47 44 And agian. In the struggle for this program the working dass will deICKOM monstrate to the REVOLUTIONARY NATIONALISTS that it the workingclasg nis destined to head the anti imperillat and BICI agrarian revolution, and that the Communist Party will prove that it alone. as the party of the working class. is able to lead it And again. The Party must strive to mobilize the masses of workers and peasants for everyday struggle AIMING TO WIN FOR THIS STRUGGLE FOR REVOLUTIONARY NATIONALIST YOUTH ANDTHE POOR POPULATION OF THE CITIES. careful rereading of the article shows that it is not open to the criticism of having failed to distinguish between the nationallist leaders and the rationalist rank and file. On the contrary, such a distin tion is the very basis of the analysis and policy given in the article.
In connection with this, we find it necessary to request you to give.
us some further elaboration on your statement that some of the Provincial LAN leaders of the Nationalist Party have led a revolt against Machado in the Eastern Province of Cuba. We refer to your statement that some of the provincial leaders and rank and file members of the party who are dissatisfied with the policy of the Menocal and the other leaders (and) are fighting against Machado (revolt in the Eastern Province of Cuba) This statement we cannot understand. First, because we have no knowledge of any recent mass movements against Machado that were led by the provincial LEADERS of the Nationalist Party except rumours in the bourgeois press which were never confirmed The recent (May) mass struggles in Eastern Cluba were movements askxMaasdax butxaExtra of unemployed workers led by the unions and by the ammunists. Second, the whole tactic of the natil one list leaders, big and small, is NOT TO AROUSE THE MASSES, with the additionethat the big leaders are practically supporting Machodo terror against the masses.
c) You say that the article is calling all students the revolutionary nationalist youth and that it makes no distinction between the students that are really fighting Machado (the left wing and those that are supporting the Nationalist Leaders, We find that this cbiticism 15 ntially not justified. First, because the article does not designs te ALL students as the revolutionary nationalist youth. It speaks of the revolutionary youth meaning all those sections of the peutybourgeois youth of the cities which is either potentially or actually revolutionary. This includes not only the revolutionary students but also the petty bourgois revolutionary youth that are not students The Left Wing represents this youth but has not yet become their mass leader. Second, Wherever the article speaks of the revolutionary STUDENT youth it refers exactly to that section of the students that is carrying on a fight against Machado. It is of this section and not of the bourgeios students, that the article says that because they are engaging in sporatic acts of individal terror, 180lated from the mass movement of the workers and peasants, without a consistant revolutionary program and aims. the revolutionary student youth 18 merely becoming a plaything in the hands of the bourgeois opposition. We recognize, however, that this point would have been made muchclearer had the article given an analysis also of the student youth. bourgesing and landlord section of the Документы Советской эпохи http: sovdoc. rusarchives. ru